A Deeper Insight Into The Group Psychology Of The Irish Swp

Why is there a total absence of fairness, equality or accountability in the SWP?

Weak leadership, cowardice, duplicity, the faults of the SWP are symptomatic of a deeper problem.

Pyscho-analayists term the darkest of our human traits the dark triad of Machiavellians, Psychopaths and
Narcissists. With a critical mass of narcissists in an organisation it becomes
effectively the same as a dangerous narcisstic individual. A study published in the
journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin suggests that when a group
is without a leader, you can often count on a narcissist to take charge.
Researchers found that people who score high in narcissism tend to take control
of leaderless groups. The motto of the
narcissistic leader is ‘others exist to admire me’. People are seen as an ‘it’
rather than a human being. If a member is a good minion for postering well and
good but if he gets sick and is no longer useful, forget it, point to the
revolving door. They have no regrets and are indifferent to the steady stream
of disposable comrades they send through the revolving door-a system that
should not be imported into the ULA.

Narcissism becomes unhealthy when the
narcissists have no consideration for others. The narcissistic leader craves
much more to be admired than to be loved. They aggressively pursue their own
goals regardless of the bad effect it may have on others. Such narcissists can
seem to be empathic (but this is a con) they empathise selectively and try to
destroy anyone who fails to believe in their pursuit of glory. A narcissistic
leader typically lacks a feeling of self-worth, which gives him a shaky centre
and an inability to perceive constructive criticism as anything other than an
attack. Without much of a grasp on reality they will find it difficult to adapt
to harsh realities. They ignore wise counsel and surround themselves with
sycophants leading the group in the wrong direction.

Collective narcissism has been researched by Agnieszka Golec de Zavala and
her collaborators. They define collective narcissism as a form of’ ‘in-group
identification tied to an emotional investment in an unrealistic belief about
the unparalleled greatness of an in-group’. Because
a narcissist group is hypersensitive to criticism they only wish to hear
selective data to support their doctrine. They will always prefer to preach
than to listen. A healthy narcissistic leader would be open to criticism and
reality-checks. ‘When we start to look upon Freud, or Muhammad, or whomever, as
unquestionable authorities, then we are falling prey to narcissistic
idealisation’ Likewise, when we subscribe to the social group as a sphere of
perfect cleanliness, void of the "destructive influence" of
independent thinkers, then we fall prey to group narcissism. Unhealthy
narcissism in group form pumps up grandiosity, creating a false self-image,
which permeates all aspects of how the organisation operates. They have no
problem with distorting, downplaying or withholding information to maintain the
pride of the group. Engaging in outright flattery and adulation to give the
whole group a feeling of superiority they will protect themselves at any cost
from any pinprick of reality into this bubble of self-congratulation. A healthy
group narcissism would manifest as a healthy pride in a meaningful mission. The
trouble with unhealthy group narcissism is that it has an inflated pride built
on a desperate grasp for glory rather than any real accomplishment.

In general they expect to
hear only messages confirming their own sense of their own greatness. Any data
that does not fit the grandiose false self-image will be ignored. The rank and
file benefit from this skewed filter on reality and become willing to bend the
truth to share in the rosy feelings of group self-adulation and ego-inflation.
This kind of fakery results in an absence of any real, authentic connection
between comrades. The whole group must tacitly collude to maintain their shared
illusions. Work becomes a charade and suppression and paranoia become Omni-present.
A narcissistic organisation may ostensibly ask for truth and candour but
encourages duplicity. Shared illusions flourish in direct proportion to the
suppression of the truth. Anyone who threatens the self-flattery even with
vital information threatens to bring the group down off its narcissistic high
to a deflated feeling of shame, failure or embarrassment.

An organisation suffering
from group narcissism like the Irish SWP can have no real political morality
because it operates within a moral universe of its own. That the group’s
inherent goodness, goals or means should not be questioned becomes an absolute.
That everything it does and says is good becomes holy writ. The
self-celebration creates a fog divorcing the group from reality. The rules
don’t apply to the narcissistic organisation, rules are for other people. Rules
are for the squares, accountability is for mainstream parties. They have a strong
self-serving bias taking credit for successes but never blame for failure.

The narcissistic idealisation
is often mistaken for a natural and healthy form of appreciation of other
people. This is a great problem, as pathology is allowed to hide behind a
respectable mask. It's the same thing with group narcissism. Its devotees are
often mistaken for nice fellows, socially mature, respectful towards other
people. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is a chimera. Such people
are only providing for their own narcissism by way of reflection in the group.
Scratch on the surface, and a nasty intolerance appears. Many psychologists
tend to view the social group as an ideal for the individual to attain which is
actually an oversimplification. Those psychologists are blind to the fact that
there is a pathological version of social life called group narcissism.

Collective narcissism is a predictor of ‘inter-group hostility,
unforgiveness, and prejudice’. They interpret ambiguous inter-group situations
as threatening the in-group's positive image and react with cowardly
passive-aggression. They also express prejudice against other groups with
similar goals because they are seen as threatening their in-group's false self-image.
Any threats to the group-ego are
met with hypersensitivity (it is far too easy to get a rise out of them). Any
of their own members who threaten the narcissistic high with a reality check
will be typically elbowed out or demoted. They turn politics into a Vanity Fair
where the best sycophants will be promoted to inner circles by playing to the
vanity of those at the top of hierarchies. The academic elitism leads to a
pretentious atmosphere more like university society meetings than you would
expect in revolutionary times and a fake bonhomie that would not be tolerated
in Greece, Spain or Egypt.

RSS and atom feeds allow you to keep track of new comments on particular stories. You can input the URL's from these links into a rss reader and you will be informed whenever somebody posts a new comment. hide help

This is a very useful piece of analysis and profiling of an organisation that has chewed up and deactivated more hundreds of activists than any other on the Irish left and the methods that they employ to carry this out.

Groupthink is a psychological trait that occurs in groups whereby rather than critically evaluating information, consensus of opinion without critical reasoning or evaluation of consequences or alternatives is engaged in. Creativity and individuality are considered potentially harmful attributes that should be avoided and the group members begin to form opinions that match the group consensus.

Groupthink seems to occur most often when a respected or persuasive leader is present, inspiring members to agree with his or her opinion on whatever the issue, policy or dogma is. An example of this would be the swp refusal to campaign or even protest against the war in Libya when traditionally they have always opposed NATO wars and bombing. But this time the party top brass decided not to oppose NATO and the lemmings duly supported the new' party line'

I agree with the contribution and its understanding of the psychological underpinnings to the problems in groups such as the swp. However the real weakness in the swp ideological foundations lie in their trotyskist policies and origins. I disagree with anarchists about 1 or 2 issues but their critiqueof trotsky his methods and his myriad of political sects are very accurate. I would make the same critique of the Socialist party their trotyskist origins are equally unstable and led them to madcap and doomed strategies such as trying infiltrate the labour party in the past!

I thought all being a trotskyite meant is that you support uprising internationally rather than in one country which is surely essential and a good thing, no? apparantly the reason the swp are supporting the Labour Party by pushing for a shared platform with them in the ULA even though it is strongly opposed by the Socialist Party is because Lenin said it was a good idea to work inside the system in 1920 in Britain. I would have thought not that it's Lenin's fault just the misapplication of Lenin's tactics applied to a different time and country and a failure for the swp to move on, not the only area where they come across as the anti-dialectic party.

Left groups that build up hyper emotions among their young recruits are rendering a long term disservice to radical politics. Young inexperienced people who are led to believe, usually at college, that if they organize intensively, flog the party paper every weekend and shout the right slogans incessantly in meetings and parades then the Revolution will surely come, because that's what Marx and others wrote in their holy scriptures.

In my observation many of these young recruits burn themselves out in a couple of years of activism, then graduate and get jobs. Some of them drop out entirely from politics and social activism, and devote themselves to lifelong pursuits such as golf and the appreciation of fine wines. Such pursuits are enjoyable and healthy, but have nothing to do with social change.

I find it highly suspicious that the swp never criticised the exectution and torture of sub saharan africans by the libyan rebels. this was despite the fact that numerous human rights groups pointed this out. Normally the swp are very quick to jump on the anti racism bandwaggon so why not on this occasion? This is why one has to ask are the swp in the pay of the imperialists? or just being used by them as dupes?

Trotskyist groups tend to be very unpredictable and unstable. They can vigorously oppose one imperialist war such as the 2 against Saddam Hussein and be totally inactive in a Nato attack on Gadaffi's Libya for 6 months! Is there any reasonable explanation for this? None that makes any sense except the central committee decided to oppose one war and turn a blind eye to the attack on Libya. As for them being agents or dupes of imperialism, It is difficult to know for sure the result is the same any way. However I did witness leading members of the swp participating in protests organised by the pro rebel pro nato Libyans at the spire on o connell street

Trotyskist groups are very unreliable at best they might oppose certain wars if it suits them or the central ctte decides to. Ireland is a post colonialist country itself so it makes far more sense to shun these unstable trotskyist groups and to look at theories and leaders who have a greater relevance to Ireland. It would make more sense to look at Che Guevarra or other true anti imperialist thinkers than Trotsky or Stalin.

It is a great pity that an otherwise well written piece (gramatically that is) isn't at least backed up by some concrete examples. I have no problem with constructive criticism but as this piece seeks to apply an individualist trait to a group then it can only serve to be read as an ad-hominem attack on that group.

The kind of group psychology theory developed above surely applies to any group. Aren't all groups, organisations, affiliations, sects etc., an exercise of mutual affirmation to a greater or lesser extent and as such isn't there at least some element of narcissim inherent there, and if we are honest we must acknowledge a little narcissim in all of us? But the piece above has brought this example to such an extremity that one would be forgiven for thinking that it refers to the German Nazi Party during the 3rd Reich were it not for the incusion of "SWP" here and there in the piece.

Overall it's over-the-top, poorly illustrated, underdeveloped piece whose writer seems to be indulging in the a-la-mode groupthink that sees the SWP as the enemy of the left. Maybe it's an example of the "in-group" narcissim mentioned above.

Oh how interesting an article. Isn't it amazing that some people feel the need to write about the burnout about swp members and never focus on people who leave their own left wing organisations? Heres the roll call boys and girls from the wsm. Btw here's a bitter article by arrogant andrew on the ODS. Where are those members?

Not only did the SWP stooges support the rats, but it supported the racist propaganda that gave "justification" for the lynching of Black people and the rounding up of thousands of Black people and their confinement to consentration camps:
"The IAWM gives its full support to the Libyan uprising. It condemns the hypocrisy of western governments which despite their humanitarian rhetoric, have failed to respond to the basic demands of Libya’s Transitional National Council (TNC). It asked for the recognition of the TNC, access to the billions in sequestrated regime funds in order to buy weapons and other crucial supplies, and an immediate halt to the “mercenary flights” that provided Gaddafi’s regime with its foot soldiers."
http://irishantiwar.org/node/1209

I witnessed prominent SWP and United Left Alliance members on Libyan rebel protests. I even overheardon a couple of them having very friendly discussions with extreme Libyan fundementalist dissidents where they were in complete agreement on their opposition and hatred of col Gadaffi.

Needless to say there were no Black Libyans on these protests and no condemnation of the numerous murders of unarmed black civilians by these rebel reactionary forces. I am glad thet I left such a reactionary group as the SWP and see a lot of home truths in the article above. I also agree that the roots of the problems inherent in the SWP lie in its hero worship of Trotsky and he is definitely not the role model for the Irish left. Unfortunately when I was a member we were brainwashed that Trotsky was some kind of a kind humanitarian saint! Nothing could be further from the truth just look at his butchery of the Kronstad workers to give but one example.

I thought this was a discussion about the in-group narcissim bordering
on psychopathology which has turned the SWP into the most dangerous
poison afflicting the great left of ireland, worse even than the
combined efforts of everything from the left of centre to the far right.

It seems that have gone from to using the Libyan situation as another stick to beat the SWP with. In the heat of battle, the fog of war, in the losses in translation, mistakes are made and what once seemed obvious and true has changed completely or is indeterminate. Gadaffi may not have been a tyrant and may have been a reasonably benevolent dictator but he was a dictator none the less and there is no such thing as a democratic or socialist dictatorship. It's a complete oxymoron.

I don't agree with what happened in Libya in terms of the "no fly zone", the indiscriminate bombing, the infiltration of the protests by foreign agents etc. I think that what happened is that once the "west" saw that Gaddaffi's regime was going to topple, they decided that they wanted to secure their investments and this is the tragedy of what has happened in Libya.

Its actually impossible to have this discussion while indymedia.ie is continuing to censor one piece of vital information, and that is the way the CIA had recruited and funded agents among the Libyan rebels from the very start - going back years (actually decades.) People who are still clinging to the idea that there was a genuine rebellion, that was somehow hi-jacked by Nato in March, are either self deluded - or else just living in a cloud of ignorance being imposed by censorship in the Western media - including indymedia.

actually no. we're happy to have discussion on the topic. Its just
wandering a little too far off topic on this particular thread but there
is now another thread where it is more on topic to address this libyan
cia support business

The SWP dont just support CIA backed reactionaries in Libya look at what they are doing closer to home at the central bank on Dame Street dublin! About a month ago they caused major confusion by organising a rival march to start 1 hour before the main march was due to start. I know a lot of people who either missed the march in the confusion or end up on the SWP Enough march by mistake much to their disgust. I just hope that they resist their compulsion to wreck todays march. It is these type of negative distructive tactics that alienate most of the left and non left activists.

It is not just the WSM that object to the anti democratic methods of the swp. Former members like Rosa Lichenstein also object to their anti democratic methods. I dont have Rosa's link at the moment but if you google her extensive information on the web she totally exposes the SWP and their very destructive modus operandi. Many congrats are due to the author who took the time to analyse them and for pointing out the psychogical causes and roots for their behaviour.

Dont think shes known well enough to give any weight to the original author who remains anonymous. thanks anyway. How did ze little protest go today? and who is the author, are they are a former swp member themself??

you could write a book with the list of things the swp have done to fuck people off. I consider them to be a mainstream party, once you support nato bombing on Lybia you change from a radical to a mainstream party.

The big problem with the SWP is their complete lack of democracy. This springs from their use of Democratic Centralism to impose their party line on their members. When the party line changes from being anti war in Afganistan and Iraq to being pro a nato backed war in Libya then democratic centralism is used to cower their members back into line to support the new sudden change in party line. Old members who stand on principle or with the old anti war line are bullied, isolated or shouted down. Many members have left the swp in the UK as well as here in Ireland so their brainwashing and control freakery is backfiring on them as Norah B and other former members have pointed out.

the swpheads bore everyone to tears that's why they're not allowed speak at occupy camp-repeating themselves like robots, will the anti-dialectic party ever say anything new? it's not my fault people like keiran allen or marnie holborrow are too easy to defeat in an argument -thats why the swp just want to recruit extremely sheepish, politically naive, people.they should back off and quit getting themselves in trouble

How can you describe yourself as being "anti-war" when you demanded that billions of euro, set aside by the legitimate Libyan government for its massive social welfare programs, should be used to buy weapons for a comprador class in Benghazi to make war on that legitimate government?

Are you proud of yourselves now that your friends and allies have brought in Sharia law, and reduced women to to the level of chattels again? You must be so happy that men can now take as many wives as they want, and when they divorce any of these unfortunate women - they can just throw them out on the street, destitute. That "tyrant" Gaddafi, when a couple divorced, made sure that both parties had a home of their own. A women could divorce her husband at any time - without fear of destitution. Gaddafi made sure she had her social salary from the oil revenues, and that she was given a house of her own. What a tyrant eh? A man couldn't even threaten his wife with destitution. No wonder the SWP wanted to return that freedom to all Libyan men.

Indymedia seems to be turning into a home for disaffected politics.ie'rs

Don't
bother sticking to topic and sling insults and shite in the hope that
some of it will draw flies. Selective use of "facts" and implication of
guilt by association. And everyone seems to be afraid to stand by their
posts by hiding behind pseudonoms. Why should any of you be taken
seriously.

Brían ó Cualáin makes the limp defense above in order to justify the SWP hob nobbing with reactionaries"In the heat of battle, the fog of war, in
the losses in translation, mistakes are made...." Wow the SWP must have had a better translator during the Iraq war when they organised numerous protests pickets and massive marches in the first weeks of the Iraq war. It is not the fog of war that is to blame it is the fog of confusion caused by your Party's central committee doing a deal in the UK with Islamic fundementalists for short term political gain and this is not the first time your partys central committee has jumped into bed with dubious bedfellows. He even has the gall to accuse any SWP critics of the selective use of facts and guilt by association! I have news for you Brian Members of your party the SWP did associate with right wing Libyan fundementalists and have been seen publicly doing so at Libyan protests.

Another little observation Rosa Lichenstein does not say what you say she does at least not on the link that you provided! is quiet
becoming the party hack I see he attempts to defend the SWP's attempted
hijack of the Occupy movement on Dame street at the following thread:http://www.indymedia.ie/article/100821

your 'fog of war' was certainly off topic Brian and some of your weak excuses for your trotskyist party refusing to organise any protests against an imperialist offensive. Stop defending your indefensible central committee and do your own thinking. I am not the only one making these criticism of the SWP most of the left criticised your hob nobbing of fundementalists in the UK. Is that off topic too? Is that how you deal with criticism of your party? Simply declare it off topic! How convenient. That is almost as good as one of your members trying to insult a former member of the swp above by calling her a hippy and other names. By that is what some of the right wingers shout at the occupy protestors on Dame St. It is telling that right and left wingers agree to hate hippies after all they were the first to say stand up to the man and question your leaders! They also stopped the Vietnam war unlike your lot did in Libya.

Yes it was off topic "freedom of speech" and I made that very point in that comment as well as my subsequent comment. If you call a meeting to discuss bananas, don't be surprised if people refuse to debate about potatoes. The topic if you take the time to read it is an attempt to apply snip of a theoretical paper on narcissim as a critique of the SWP. Libya is not mentioned anywhere in that piece.

Indeed so! To join in with the Imperialist Thugs and with those in Sharia who will put down the women of Libya, and also same applies in Syria as we speak (Assad must be defended) is the greatest betrayal.

There is (also) a wholesale attack on Marxism taking place.
The above are just three concrete examples of the thoroughly malignant effect this Hermetic theory has had on our movement. There are many others.
Is it any wonder then that since at least the 1920s Dialectical Marxism has been to success what http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm is to intellectual achievement?
This is not a short-term or ephemeral feature of Dialectical Marxism, but one that has dogged it since the beginning, and which shows no sign of improving -- quite the reverse, in fact!
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm#...kyism
(The writer, who seems to be making a superficial criticism of the SWP, is in reality attacking Marxism under cover of making that criticism. It seems that the writer is confusing the reader as to what is meant by “Dialectical Materialism” by using the term “Dialectical Marxism”)
I follow a link in a comment above and I find this remarkable piece of writing. What is “Dialectical Marxism”? I have never heard it mentioned before, anywhere!
There is, of course, the concept of “Dialectical materialism”, which is a real philosophical term which is of profound importance in our day and age, when there is a great sprouting of all kinds of idealist thinking, in especially the onslaught against Darwin and Evolution conducted by Creationism, itself a product of the lies of Capitalism.
Capitalism, the capitalist system in deep and insoluble crisis, cannot look at reality from a scientific standpoint.
If you doubt this just turn to the David McWilliams website and see the very clever, but wrong and idealist answers, to the provocative articles by David about the economic crisis. This form of thinking, “idealism”, or “subjective idealism” links up with “Creationism”, and stops workers and youth from gaining a clear understand of the Reality that we are living within, and have to live through.
But “Dialectical Marxism”, (for a start never heard of it), is meaningless, and can only serve the purpose of drawing the listener or reader away from the philosophical term and its vital content for today of “Dialectical Materialism”.
To understand that Capitalism is a system that is historical, to approach the study of the capitalist system from an historical standpoint, that is something that the writers on the blog I mention cannot ever do. That is a revolutionary socialist question and brings one to the heart of Marxism, which to find an answer to the present crisis in capitalism, not to reform capitalism which cannot be done, but to replace capitalism by initially the dictatorship of the working class, and thereby to make socialism possible.

..and a thorough dismissal of 'idealism' while arguing for scientific method.

My problem?Well that 'dictatorship of the working class' seems open to myriad idealistic interpretations.

Can you elaborate?Not trying to be flippant, but it seems like an excercise that would require quite a few microphones.

Thats the trouble with esoteric jargon, its very self-satisfying and reassuring as to one's own intellectual superiority..but its not the language working people use to express their(not unrealistic)understandings of the way the world is unfolding.

Or wil you be establishing a cadre to deliver this idealistic dictatorship of the multitudes?

The word hippy seems to be one of their worst insults when they lose the arguaments they resort to throwing in around as an insult. As was stated above these guys stopped the Vietnam war and any other war starting for a decade after the Vietnam war. That is more that the SWP can say about the war in Libya. As for Brian you seem to acknowledge that you cant deny any of the criticisms of the SWp so you resort to a technical arguament and declare all valid and well explaned criticisms as being "off topic" well so is the hippy insults etc from SWP defenders. So tune in man or drop out! Peace baby

I'm not sure if the anti-dialectics link was provided for my benefit or in response to my post citing Rosa Lichenstien. I was providing that link in response to 'Rosa Lichenstien fan'; I don't know where the anti-dialectic link came from but I assume it must be from one or other of the Lichenstien links judging by her 'thesis' but I've only just glanced over. She doesn't appear to be a recognised authority on Marxism so I'm not going to waste time reading it.

Again, as I have to keep repeating, this is off topic in realtion to the article above.

Well it sure gets us back on topic about group psychology...means even I can play.

Reminds me of all those sterile circle-jerkin lefty radicals way back when we were just the lumpen to be dismissed...funny most of the ideologues went into well-heeled corporate positions...while we just emigrated, again, and went back on the lump.

But we kept on resisting the non-think brigades and at least trying to think for ourselves. Doesn't mean we didn't read some Marx...just that we read him for ourselves, not through some pontificating ideologue's lens. Most of whom dont even seem to understand his manifesto, never mind his other writings, in which he lays out the methodology and flexibility required.

as to what Marx meant...but most Marxists seem to have their own interpretations, and a collection of circular jargon cliches to browbeat any they deem less enlightened than themselves.

And they seem to revert to a puritan biblical evangelism I find as alienating as Roman obscurantist jesuitism. To go back to psychology, Freud would have described it as classic displacement..denial of religion, conjoined to religiosity in secular garb.

Need I remind you of the left-wing indocrination(and even practise on a NATIONAL level)of fascistic movements, and indeed national socialism, which exploited just this failure to think and reliance on ideological comformity and the party line to justify state capitalist replacements of the capitalist precursors?It can be seen mutating in China at present into a system reminiscent of Victorian England in the name of adherence to orthodox interpretation. And the corporate state(central to fascisms)updates the interpretation to suit changing conditions.

Orwell exposed the flaws better than I can. Some become more 'working class' than others. And the dictatorship of the Major pig ensues. I'm sticking with the democratic necessity to listen and accept other interpretations..at least till ye elect me dictator for life.

Great essay on the group psychology of the SWP. Well done socialist. I hope you keep up the psychology and the writing you have a great talent and flair for both. No wonder the SWP hates it so much the truth hurts.

This Dialectic nonsense is used by groups like the SWP to justity their more crazy decisions and policies. It is a useful smokescreen to hide behind when their undemocratic central ctte decided to change a position without consulting their members. We need less dishonest strokes and dogma and excuses

Hardly a great essay. All it does is take a snip from a thesis on the psychology of in-group narcissim and try to apply it to the SWP in Ireland. Yet no where in the essay does it give an example of how this may be applied to the SWP. The same exact pseudo diagnosis could be applied to any number of groups. Furthermore if it is such a great essay why does the author hide behind anonimity. People may not like how the SWP goes about recruiting and campaigning and that's fair enough but it's a bit of a stretch to put it down to in-group narcissim.

Spartacus and hippie in the same sentence, well that says it all about the hippie movement really. I dropped out myself back in the 80's and I lived in squats and tents, took the drugs etc and I've read all the great writers on the hippie phenomenon from Ginsberg, Kerouac, Burroughs, Kesey to Thompson. Its all very well to wander around spreading peace and love and that works but only up to a point .. in a planet that now has 7billion inhabitants, where 5-10% consume more that the rest, the hippie philosophy (if it could be distilled into any philosophy) isn't about to solve any problems when it comes to planning on such a scale. Incidentally the hippies are of the 5-10%.

As for dogma and jargon, if you go back through the comments you will see that it was someone other than I that started down that road. Just because dialectics is non-sensical to you that doesn't make it non-sense, such a statement says more about you than anything else.

“Gadaffi may not have been a tyrant and may have been a reasonably benevolent dictator but he was a dictator none the less and there is no such thing as a democratic or socialist dictatorship. It's a complete oxymoron.

I don't agree with what happened in Libya in terms of the "no fly zone", the indiscriminate bombing, the infiltration of the protests by foreign agents etc. I think that what happened is that once the "west" saw that Gaddaffi's regime was going to topple, they decided that they wanted to secure their investments and this is the tragedy of what has happened in Libya.”

If I take the second paragraph first then I have no hesitation in saying that Brian is most dishonest in that he is remaining a member of the SWP even though he “does not agree” with what happened in Libya. Why be in a movement if you disagree on this very fundamental issue.

The first paragraph is even more important though! Muammar Gadhafi was a dictator yes. The regime established after the overthrow of the King was a military led regime. But so what, that is the way it happened in Libya, and moreover we can say that it was the way that IT HAD TO HAPPEN because there was no working class, no leadership of a working class, it was atribal society, and there was the dominant factor of Islam. There was also a history of Imperialist Italian and british repressikon of the Libyans and thus a great anger against Imperialism. All of that was contained in the concrete situation in Libya.

The following quote is from an article by the SWP in 2006 and in it is drawn the lesson of the great issue of the Nazi and Mussolini attack on Ethiopia. This was back in 2006 when the SWP were still drawing on the lessons of Trotsky, FROM WHICH THEY HAVE NOW CLEARLY DEPARTED. This is perhaps the real lesson to the SWP in Ireland supporting NATO and the Muslim Brotherhood against Muammar Gadhafi…their degeneration:

In another article he wrote, “Of course, we are for the defeat of Italy and the victory of Ethiopia... When war is involved, for us it is not a question of who is ‘better’, the Negus or Mussolini; rather, it is a question of the relationship of classes and the fight of an underdeveloped nation for independence against imperialism.”

Trotsky’s stand did not imply any political agreement with the Abyssinian regime. “When Italy attacked Ethiopia”, Trotsky explained, “I was fully on the side of the latter, despite the Ethiopian Negus for whom I have no sympathy. What mattered was to oppose imperialism’s seizure of this new territory.”

Talking about whether Muammar Gadhafi was a dictator or not, which was the central line of the SWP in Ireland when they congregated in Dublin with banners, and had their Dail Eireann spokesman speak from the rostrum on a Dublin street, in support of the NATO and Muslim Brotherhood war on Gadhafi, IS AN EVASION.

That is the real lesson from the Trotskyist experience in the 1930s.

Trotsky knew very well that Selassie was a despot and probably a tyrant. But that was of no significance whatsoever to Trotsky. He took the side of Selassie unconditionally against the Nazis and against Imperialism.

But that the SWP could not do in relation to Muammar Gadhafi.

This has had other consequences which were in evidence in many videos on YouTube from the very earliest days of this fight, videos which showed a howling mob urging on and watching an unfortunate black man being strung up and literally (I can find no other word) degutted and disembowelled.

What was motivating this mob is an area that I fear Indymedia will not allow me to cover, and thus will have to cover in other forums, but which is nevertheless of vital importance for the workers of Ireland and for the youth and students also.

What is extra sad is to see how people like “Brian” have been miseducated in the Ireland of today. For his information (and please reader do pay attention to his words in that first fateful paragraph I quoted from Brian, there is nothing at all “democratic” about the working class taking power, the working class taking power will have to be done by force, and it the working class will have to create ITS dictatorship.

It thus seems that the SWP, if Brian is anything to go by, is closer to “anarchism and Bakunin” than he is to Karl Marx. What degeneration!

Brian of the SWP either knows nothing about Libya - or he is a liar. He claims that the West saw that Gaddafi was going to fall anyway - so the West just jumped in on the winning side. Complete garbage. Nato was in there from day one and before, supplying weapons and money, and making promises of international support. Even then, the Libyan government had the Nato rebels defeated by March. The whole of UN Resolution 1973 was about the claim that the rebels were going to be massacred if they didnt have Nato "protection." How could that be the West seeing that Gaddafi was going to be toppled anyway? And then, even after months of Nato carpet bombing of Tripoli and other cities, and a huge anti-Nato popular demonstration in Tripoli, of over a million people - numbers that the Nato rats have still not been able to come close to in their demonstrations - Nato just completely ignored the fact that it and its rebels had been rejected by the Libyan people, and proceeded to bomb the population into submission. And this is the Nazi regime that the SWP and the SP (to a lesser extent) have given their support to.

You cant even ask them simple little questions about Marxism
like for example I have a question about a contradiction of Marx’s ecology-he
says the separation of labour is bad for the planet so then how can we have
worker’s soviets? If people are not in jobs for life they won’t be able to run
a company/factory/farm themselves because they wont be committed to one field
or job role-it’s the sort of innocent little question that u cant ask because the
swp professors go all discombobulated like the they think you’re attacking Marxism
or undermining them or their theories-we all just want to find the answers how
to create a better world so if they’re gonna set themselves up as the Marx
experts then they should engage with questions like that.

it would be great if anyone could enlighten me on that

And while I’m at it Brian if you thing your party is so
great go tell them to send papers to all the people who’ve paid for papers and
see how far you get. Then go contradict some jumped up ponce on the snob
committee like the snobnose or the tool and watch them go
purple in the face and steam come out their ears, then ask them what they mean
by ‘Unity’, working ‘With’ or looking for ‘youngpeople young people youngpeople’,
‘recruit recruit recruit recruit recruit recruit recruit recruit youngpeople young
people youngpeople’like vampires after young blood ‘ to work ‘For’ them like
they’re line managers because

2 minutes after Not being elected onto the
snob committee they think they are Infallible like the pope even when they are
talking thru their hats.

And Felix....you dont have to be Trotskyist, or any other ism, to recognise China as the only real contender against the Project for a New American Century...its sort of wallpaper at this stage.

And if you're going into antisemitism you'l have to recognise the major manifestation of this subset of racisms is the anti-Arabism rampant across the 'west'.

And your 'Jewish homeland' is the greatest promoter of this racist psychosis, possibly because it is posited on the dispossesion of the homeland of the Palestinian semitic people by the Europeans using the colony to further their hegemonic ends since its nineteenth-century racist foundation, in parallel with the various pseudo-scientific academic interpretations of incipient genetics, that also incuded the Aryan nonsense which went on to its well documented delusionary distopia.

And Gadaffi did not last so long without his realpolitik ability to know when to collaborate with the empire..not least(correct me if you know better)by his reported inclusion among the coalition of the willing special renditionists. Keep the balance.

Felix maps out some of the SWP 'mistakes' above and Socialist does the useful service of mapping out their psychological shortcomings and group narcissism. They were never a proper trotskyite group anyway they are really subjective idealists who have departed from not only Trotskism but from Marxism with their mad and discredited theory of state capitalism which is accepted by no other credible marxist party. It is their subjective idealism and lack of a scientific approach that has led to their unprincipled errors' in supporting imperialism and fundementalist extremism in the middle east.

As someone with an interest in both psychology and Marxism I really like Opus Diablos insights into the reasons behind the SWP's degeneration as outlined above. However wasnt Freud bourgeois and even somewhat right wing in his thinking? Saying that I havent really done that much study on Freud, so I could be off the mark on that one Opus, if so please correct me.

I am very interested in the overlap between socialism and Psychology. I know Foucault bridged the gap between the 2 disciplines. And of course the still unsurpassed work of the Frankfurt school, in particular theorists like Erich Fromm linked both subjects very well and in a very scientific and academically convincing way. In fact if I was to make one minor criticism of the excellent document written by socialist it would be that it did not draw on some of the pioneering work which enriched and developed both Marxism and psychology by and the Frankfurt school and to a lesser extent Michel Foucault.

I agree with many of the points made by the original writer of the interesting essay above and also with many of the points made by Opus and Felix. The SWP have degenerated into subjective idealists and we definitely need a new party. Phoney theories such as 'state capitalism' are part of where they went wrong ideologically. They also have destroyed the United Left Alliance which I had planned to join before I found out how undemocratically run it was.

I also agree with Felix and with Opus Diablos that the study of Freud is very advisable. In addition to this we should also examine the work done on psychology and marxism by the theorists of the Frankfurt school there is indeed a lot that we can still learn from them. Unfortunately their books are hard to get but are far better than any SWP publications that I have read now. These books are well worth checking out you might get them secondhand from amazon perhaps.

If Opus really had academic qualifications in psychology, how could he possibly agree with the slanderous attack on the SWP by 'socialist' in the Group Narcissism essay above? I fully agree with comrade Brian that you have gone off topic and seriously off message by bringing in irrelevant points such as Nazis and subjective idealists, what have either got to do with the essay on the SWP above? At least Freud and Foucault have some relevance to psychology. That is not exactly very acedemic is it Opus? Is it not possible to focus on the document or have you even read it? You also admit to following Freud and that his bourgeois status is not problem for you. Could you not at least find a socialist psychologist to admire

Your comment is somewhat incoherent, as well as ad hominem. You are a fine example of the 'socialist' ideologue that makes me refrain from adopting such subjective appellations. I actually know and have worked with swp members, so I am inclined to wonder if you are not false flagging with that nonsense.

I'll resist the temptation to dismiss you more vitriolically. Try a little construction. Or is it my exposure of the psychology of the racism manifesting as Zionism that troubles you?I've noticed that drawing such reactive knee-jerks previously. Sore spot?

I have studied Freud and Marx and others and learnt from all of them. I dismiss a great deal of Freud due to the limited milieu in which his work took place. Being Bourgeois isn't a disease and one should refrain from being close minded and obsessed with ideological consistency.
Learn from others but have your own voice and opinions.

That his thinking evolved over time, and he was constantly qualifying his observations, and stressing the centrality of context.

And that he decried Freudians, as surely as Marx did Marxists. Bourgeois is just a handy verbal weapon the mentally inept use to prop their fragile and often narrow egos. The use of jargon is a classic example of psychological bullying. Unfortunately, too many would rather score points than elucidate complexities.

One of the services Freud did was to provide objective language to allow discussion of taboo subjects such as human sexuality...much of his work has since been superceded, but he provided beginnings in a virtual desert.

Hi Opus. Totally agree with your opinion on Freud. Am quite open to what Jung had to say, however, again I have reservations.
My real point is not to ignore what has gone before, which would be impossible, anyway, but rather to seek one's own real, authentic voice, rather than trading an in-group lexicon and associated jargon.
The planetary situation should focus the mind.

The essay written by "socialist" could be a useful blueprint to stimulate the discussion needed to form a new party and to avoid the type of narcissism prevalent in the SWP reoccuring in a new party and destroying it. I strongly believe that we can learn from Freud and Jung as Opus and comrade felix and RE suggests. However I disagree that Trotsky should be a guiding light. I have seen too many groups destroyed by Trotskyism over the years and end up nowhere. It is an ideology that uses hair splitting and division to burn out and drive away some of the most genuine and best activists that can be found. I think James Connolly is a far better role model and some international revolutionaries have a lot to teach us here in Irelandlook to third world countries for inspiration their struggles are more akin to our history. I would strongly recommend proven revolutionaries such as Che Guevarra, Fidel castro, Mao etc. They actually had sucessful revolutions in their countries something the SWP will never achieve or any other english based trotskyite group either.

I think swp tactics have really backfired. Their idea to
hide socialism under the table and try dupe or hoodwink people into joining
things should probably win rubbish tactic of the year award-as if people are so
thick they don’t notice it’s the same people with the red flags doing the
meeting or hiding under a cloak called Enough/ pbp whatever. Maybe they have
just realised they are not socialists.

They behave like a gang of kids in a schoolyard without a
sensible grown up in site with any rules to teach them how share like nice
children-share the floor, a stall, a paper, a website. Nobody with a conscience
would recruit more swpheads so they can be fucked around no end or unfairly
mistreated. The way the swp treat people is not just unfair it’s also against
the law.

I think what gets people’s goat is really their sly and
underhand tactics.

They are obviously really ashamed of their own party. They
embarrass themselves and others, they should really disolve themselves into the
ULA.

The swp are so undemocractic at their annual conference they
ask you for 10euro for a green voting card which isn’t even usefull to elect
anyone they just call out 11 people’s first names, there u go, there’s your
central committee, they don’t even tell you before hand that you will have to
pay for some fake, stage managed play pretend ‘election’.

The only thing the card was useful for was to vote with Gino
Kenny and about 2 other people against the Labour Party connection. When you
ask a sensible question like where’s the constitution or the branch rules
(which I asked Keiran Allen a total of 9 nine times) they just fob you off or
tell you to go read tony cliff a guy writing about a party in a different
country 50 years ago!!!!

If they have any rules they must be hiding them under Richard’s
bed because they just make up the rules as they go along, a bit like playing
scrabble with the mean kids.

The swp are so undemocractic you can put forward the same
motion 3 times that ‘this branch will do chair rotation’, have it voted for and
agreed 3 times and 3 times have it not be implemented because obnoxious chair
hogs like Mary Smith just impose themselves over and over again without
anyone’s permission.

Their national secretary could not be more useless, he is
incapable of telling his old mates to behave themselves.

The swp are so undemocractic they sent RBB in to meet
Sarkozy even though their rank n file were against it.

The swp are so undemocractic if your boyfriend is on the
central committee they send you around to branches to do the same talk on
Russian revolution for junior cert students twice in the space of 6 weeks! And
silence people with sensible things to say.

There education is so shite they have people attending
meetings every week for 10 years that have to ask a new member what does
‘dialectic’ mean cos they’re holding it off like some kind of esoteric
knowledge that only the special people understand, a bit like the kabbalists,
except cults can’t get away with that stuff anymore since the spread of the
internet.

The swp are so undemocractic : their statement calling the
June ULA conference ‘democratic’ considering the large numbers of people
actually refused permission to speak was actually galling. If I had to again
witness some guy up from the country having to repeatedly beg Ailbhe Smith for
permission to speak I think I would puke on the spot.

The only hope is if the socialist party know anything about
democracy mabey they can sort them out.

Tora bora is joking or is being very naive by stating "The only hope is if the socialist party know anything about democracy...." Please read "socialist" fine essay which exposes the SWP and multiply it by 10 and you will have the SP! These guys are a completly undemocratic cult, anyway the two groups are having a love in at the moment in the ULA and wont criticise each other about anything. Professor Dennis Tourish in his excelent essay on democratic centralism and cultism uses them as a case study. He looks at the CWI the Socialist Party's ancestor. The cognitive dissonance that this group created in their members comes across quiet clearly in his paper and the way they manipulated their members who are compelled to uncritically accept the theories of unchallenged, infallible leaders was an extremely damaging and harmful practice that damaged the psychological health of vulnerable and decent members of the CWI/SP

Felix Quigley points out that SP and SWP are united in a love affair in ULA, and that Militant did provide cover for Labour Party reactionaries. Its new role seems to be its new love affair with the reactionary SWP. Maybe this explains why there hasnt been a probe into the role of the CIA agent inside the SWP in Ireland. As far as I know that was the chap whose cover was blown by the Sunday world paper and Irish Travellers. Yes this does bear more investigation. I also agree with Felix about Militant bonkers ideas that the Irish and British Labour Party could be reformed. Militant/ Socialist party are very cult like in the way that they brainwash their younger members into following the party line and they utilise democratic centralism to achieve this. Peter Taffe et al have a lot to answer for, they ruined the lives and health of many good activists in both Britain and here.

But he is also an incorrigible and recidivist apologist for Zionist fascism and racial theories that atavistically echo nineteenth century pseudo-scientific rationalisations of white supremacism and imperial rapacity.

you can safely accept the site certificate. It allows you to browse the site securely through an encrypted connecion. The reason you get a browser warning is because the certificate is generated by the indy server itself and not by a known corporate certificate authority. Would you trust that more? ;-)

Its bad enuf ‘democracy’ in their own organisation is a bad
joke, they have to go and destroy any noble efforts to do democracy anywhere
else like at the central bank-having to fight with stingy mean bags for the mic
just put me off going to the general assembly meetings.

As a member of the swp and pbp I just found the decision
makers worryingly incompetent and totally unapologetic about the perpetual
fuck-ups, for some reason we’re all supposed to trust rbb with no explanation
as to why. If you just take people as you find them (rather than what they say)
you’ll find the swp are the world’s biggest hypocrites.

I wouldn’t trust them
as far as I would throw them and I would throw them into the Liffey-which is probly
where they’ll end up if a revolution ever kicks off, which is why they engage
in counter revolutionary acts like physically preventing the people from
storming dail eireann on may 11 2010 -they think they need to educate the
working class first because apparently the working class are too racist to be
allowed to rise up they have to be prevented from rising up by the swpheads
doing the job of the guardai for them.

The swp are a bolt on the door to revolution.

Rbb is actually the only td in Dail Eireann not answerable
to the people; all of the other TD’s actually respond to their public
correspondence except him, apparently he’s above question for some reason-must
be the dunlaoighre hippy sense of entitlement.

I used to be an swp member - for two years in fact. Two wasted years. The swp appealed to me, I am ashamed to admit, because I took their good causes at face value. I still believe in many of the causes that they supposedly stand for, but I no longer believe that they are genuine about their support on various issues. Their number one goal is to grow the party. I don't have time or energy to go into it now, but to summarize, I found them to be opportunistic, media whores. They squashed any kind of constructive criticism or open debate. It was quite a demoralizing experience for me. I'm glad I got out after two years and not later.

"It is not just the WSM that object to the anti democratic methods of the swp. Former members like Rosa Lichenstein also object to their anti democratic methods. I dont have Rosa's link at the moment but if you google her extensive information on the web she totally exposes the SWP and their very destructive modus operandi. Many congrats are due to the author who took the time to analyse them and for pointing out the psychogical causes and roots for their behaviour."

In fact, I make a point about far left groups in general. My comments about the UK-SWP (in my experience, easily one of the most democratic on the left) are confined to recording its own members comments about its democratic structures -- which all admit need reviewing.

"Incidendentally and sticking to the topical off-topicness, Rosa Lichtenstein said 'I used to be in the UK-SWP, but I still agree with its politics.'"

And that's still the case. I hope to re-join one day... :)

Felix Quigley:

"(The writer, who seems to be making a superficial criticism of the SWP, is in reality attacking Marxism under cover of making that criticism. It seems that the writer is confusing the reader as to what is meant by “Dialectical Materialism” by using the term “Dialectical Marxism”)"

No, I'm not attacking Marxism, I'm attacking a theory that has been (unnecessarily) grafted onto it.

"I follow a link in a comment above and I find this remarkable piece of writing. What is “Dialectical Marxism”? I have never heard it mentioned before, anywhere!"

In fact, this term is my own invention. It is needed otherwise if I keep mentioning Marxism (without the word 'Dialectical' added), individuals will get the wrong idea and think I am attacking Marxism -- which you seem to have concluded anyway!

And I am not criticising the SWP, either (except only in so far as its leadership and many of its members accept dialectical materialism).

"There is, of course, the concept of “Dialectical materialism”, which is a real philosophical term which is of profound importance in our day and age, when there is a great sprouting of all kinds of idealist thinking, in especially the onslaught against Darwin and Evolution conducted by Creationism, itself a product of the lies of Capitalism."

The link you posted earlier connects to an Introductory essay, written at the request of a few comrades who found my main essays either to long or too difficult. It doesn't pretend to be comprehensive, and represents only a tiny fraction of my case against this theory. It's written only for novices -- indeed, as I point out in the preamble to that essay!

Brian o Cualain:

"I'm not sure if the anti-dialectics link was provided for my benefit or in response to my post citing Rosa Lichtenstein. I was providing that link in response to 'Rosa Lichtenstein fan'; I don't know where the anti-dialectic link came from but I assume it must be from one or other of the Lichtenstein links judging by her 'thesis' but I've only just glanced over. She doesn't appear to be a recognised authority on Marxism so I'm not going to waste time reading it."

I don't claim to be a 'recognised authority on Marxism', but if you ever do pluck up courage to read what I have written you'll soon see I have demolished Dialectical Materialism [DM] (and Materialist Dialectics [MD]).

Now, if theory is tested in practice, and if DM/MD forms the core of our theory, then the last 150 years has returned a pretty clear verdict: DM/MD has been refuted. Either that, or theory isn't tested in practice -- or, indeed, Marxists have been using a different theory, and kept that fact well hidden.

Hence, we have no other option than to rethink our core theory like the radicals we claim to be.

where I have also responded to the only possible replies dialectical Marxists can make to the above assertion.

"As for dogma and jargon, if you go back through the comments you will see that it was someone other than I that started down that road. Just because dialectics is non-sensical to you that doesn't make it non-sense, such a statement says more about you than anything else"

As an avid reader of Rosa's writings I was delighted to read her contribution to this excellent discussion on Indymedia.ie Rosa indeed has demolished Dialectical materialism” and other forms of idealist thinking on her website.

Rosa Lichenstein has demolished dialectical materialism once and for all . Now we can forget all about it , can we ? I don’t think so . Rosa and Rosa fan should know that the demolishment of Marxist methodology is a work in progress . As surely as there will be a four man gang out apocryphically painting the Forth Bridge next week , you can bet your old boots that there will be a team out demolishing dialectical materialism next week as well - and next year .

On the other hand, given the SWP's recent support for groups like the Nato-backed Libyan National Council , Rosa's repudiation of Marxism will certainly put her in a good position if she is serious about wanting to renew her membership of the SWP .

I don't know how many times I've read statements like "X has demolished Dialectical Materialism." Every time you see that, it's stated in a gush of wishful thinking. Some poor idiot, who really has no idea about philosophy, would like if the world could be simple and "decent" again - just like it was before Marx. What sad people we have in this world...

I never heard of Rosa Lichenstein before, so I decided to have a look of her refutation of Hegel - which was, in fact, an account of the writings of someone called Lawler. Seems Rosa never bothered to read Hegel himself, but just some second hand account. No doubt, she has never read Marx either. I wonder why she left the SWP. She seems just their sort...

Joe MC -- I haven't repudiated Marxism, just the mystical philosophy Engels inflicted on the movement.

"Rosa Lichenstein has demolished dialectical materialism once and for all . Now we can forget all about it , can we ? I don’t think so . Rosa and Rosa fan should know that the demolishment of Marxist methodology is a work in progress . As surely as there will be a four man gang out apocryphically painting the Forth Bridge next week , you can bet your old boots that there will be a team out demolishing dialectical materialism next week as well - and next year ."

I agree, and have stated this at my site, and elsewhere, many times. And here is why (I posted this at RevLeft a while back in reply to the question "Why is Dialectical Materialsm a World View?"):

"The founders of this quasi-religion weren't workers; they came from a class that educated their children in the classics and in philosophy. This tradition taught that behind appearances there is a hidden world, accessible to thought alone, which is more real than the material universe we see around us.

"This way of seeing things was invented by ideologues of the ruling class, who viewed reality this way. They concocted this world-view because if you belong to, benefit from or help run a society which is based on gross inequality, oppression and exploitation, you can keep order in several ways.

"The first and most obvious way is through violence. This will work for a time, but it is not only fraught with danger, it is costly and it stifles innovation (among other things).

"Another way is to persuade the majority (or a significant section of "opinion formers", administrators, intellectuals, editors, philosophers, and the like) that the present order either works for their benefit, is ordained of the 'gods', or is 'natural' and cannot be fought, reformed or negotiated with.

"Hence, a world-view is necessary for the ruling-class to carry on ruling in the same old way. While the content of this ruling ideology may have altered with each change in the mode of production, its form has remained largely the same for thousands of years: Ultimate Truth can be accessed by thought alone, and can therefore be imposed on reality dogmatically.

"So, these non-worker founders of our movement, who had been educated to believe there was just such a hidden world that governed everything, when they became revolutionaries, looked for principles in that invisible world that told them that change was inevitable and part of the cosmic order. Enter dialectics, courtesy of the dogmatic ideas of a ruling-class mystic called Hegel.

"That allowed the founders of this quasi-religion to think of themselves as special, as prophets of the new order, which workers, alas, could not quite grasp because of their defective education and their reliance on ordinary language and 'commonsense'.

"Fortunately, history has predisposed these prophets to ascertain the truth about reality on their behalf, which means they are their 'naturally-ordained' leaders. That in turn meant these 'leaders' were the rightful teachers of the 'ignorant masses', and who could thus legitimately substitute themselves for the unwashed majority -- in 'their own interests', you understand.

"And that is why 'Materialist Dialectics' is a world-view.

"It's also why dialecticians cling on to this theory like grim death (and become very emotional (and abusive!) when it is attacked by yours truly), since it provides them with a source of consolation that, despite appearances to the contrary, and because this hidden world tells them that Dialectical Marxism will one day be a success, everything is in fact peachy, and nothing in the core theory needs changing -- in spite of the fact that this core theory says everything changes! Hence, it is ossified into a dogma, and imposed on reality. A rather nice unity of opposites for you to ponder.

"And that is how this 'theory' insulates the militant mind from reality.

"In which case (to paraphrase Marx): Dialectics is the sigh of the depressed dialectician, the heart of a heartless world. It is the opiate of the party. The abolition of dialectics as the illusory happiness of the party hack is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

"Unfortunately, these sad characters will need (materialist) workers to rescue them from themselves.

"Changing the material conditions that gave rise to such alienated thought-forms is the only thing that will finally bring Dialectical Day-Dreaming to an end.

"I stand no chance!

"Dialectical Mystics are just going to have to rely on the material force of the working class to save them from themselves and from this virus of the mind."

As with religious belief, only idealists imagine that dialecical-adepts can be argued out of their faith.

"I don't know how many times I've read statements like "X has demolished Dialectical Materialism." Every time you see that, it's stated in a gush of wishful thinking. Some poor idiot, who really has no idea about philosophy, would like if the world could be simple and "decent" again - just like it was before Marx. What sad people we have in this world..."

1) See my post above.

2) In that case, since you are such an expert philosopher, you will no doubt find it easy to show where I go wrong.

In the meantime, while we are waiting for The Oracle to speak, comrades might like to read my demonstration that all philosophical theories (and not just the fourth-rate 'theory' Hegel inflicted in humanity, upside down or 'the right way up'), are non-sensical:

"I never heard of Rosa Lichenstein before, so I decided to have a look of her refutation of Hegel - which was, in fact, an account of the writings of someone called Lawler. Seems Rosa never bothered to read Hegel himself, but just some second hand account. No doubt, she has never read Marx either. I wonder why she left the SWP. She seems just their sort..."

1) As I pointed out in that essay, Lawler's explanation of 'dialectical contradictions' is the best Marxist attempt I have come across in over thirty years researching this 'theory'. Since I am not directly concerned with Hegel as such in this essay, only the baleful influence his ideas have had on Marxism, I have focussed on attempts made by Marxists (like Lawler) to explain this obscure concept.

Now, if you know of a better attempt, or can explain this concept yourself, please don't be shy.

2) However, in that essay, I quote Hegel extensively, and indeed refute what he had to say. If you think I have misconstrued his ideas, or have made mistakes, then, as an expert Hegel scholar yourself, I'm sure you will be only too happy to put me right.

3) I have in fact been studying Hegel since the late 1970s. And Marx, too.

4) Since I quote Hegel extensivley in that essay, it's quite plain you did not read it. Or, you did so with a bag over your head.

5) I tackle Hegel directly in many of my other essays. Now, if you are going to make personal comments about me or my ideas, then it might be a good idea to aquaint yourself with what I have actually written before doing so. Of course, you don't have to read my work, no one does. But only an idiot would pass comment on something he hasn't read.

Perhaps you are that idiot?

6) As I repeatedly say at my site, I will be tackling Hegel's core ideas in future essays. You can misread/fail to read those, too, when they are published.

-----------------------

For anyone interested

I have summarised some of Hegel's more glaring gaffs here (this was an essay written specifically for novices (posted at ReLeft a year or so ago), and is a short preview of the essays I mentioned in 6) above):

That, apparently, being your philosophical theoretical stance..are you being paradoxical or oxymoronic deliberately?

And, sense itself being a subjective call, is it the corollary implication that sense itself is a delusionary artifact?

Seems a wee bit nihilistic, or do I misread?"

A good question, but one that has already answered further down in the same thread.

Here it is again:

"Non-sensical sentences are those that are incapable of expressing a sense, no matter what we try to do with them -- that is, they are incapable of being true, and they are incapable of being false. But, there are many different types of non-sensical sentences, which aren't the least bit philosophical or metaphysical. For example, rules. Rules can't be true and they can't be false -- since they are imperatives. They can only be practical, or otherwise, useful or not, obeyed or abrogated.

"Now, my sentences are elucidatory rules; they are aimed at explaining where traditional philosophy goes astray. An analogy might help. Let us suppose that a certain individual is a novice at chess, and does not really grasp the rules. Let us further suppose that I try to explain where he/she is going wrong. I will say things like this "This is the queen and she moves like this". This can't be false, for if it were, it would not be a rule about the queen in chess, but about a figment of my own imagination. And if it can't be false, it can't be true either -- of course, since I am expressing a rule. Suppose I then go on to say "No, the bishop does not move like that, it's an important piece that moves diagonally, like this". These sentences look like they are in the indicative mood, but their role tells us they are imperatives.

"So, my comments about metaphysical sentences are like this; they show where traditional philosophers have gone wrong by reminding them/us how we ordinarily use language -- i.e., what it's rules are.

"And this follows on Marx's advice:

"'The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life.' [The German Ideology.]

"And when we do that, we can see philosophical theses for what they are: self-important and empty strings of words."

----------------------

So, I'm not propounding a better or superior philosophical theory, just showing where every last one of them can't fail to go astray.

..my instincs were right when I decided to concentrate on history and psychology ...and if I wanted philosophy go talk to the women in Moore St. Though I do like Socrates methodology.

But 'Nor can sense be subjective, either. If it were communication would be impossible.'

If it were not, misunderstanding would be impossible; and the approximations of overlapping subjective interpretations that constitutes communications would be unnecessary.

Cogito ergo sum...and after that its tentative...I do believe its the scientific heuristic method of progressive development. There are no absolute truths, including this one...otherwise the White Rabbit and Monthy Python would not make sense...in a relativistic polyverse.

"If it were not, misunderstanding would be impossible; and the approximations of overlapping subjective interpretations that constitutes communications would be unnecessary.

Cogito ergo sum...and after that its tentative...I do believe its the scientific heuristic method of progressive development. There are no absolute truths, including this one...otherwise the White Rabbit and Monthy Python would not make sense...in a relativistic polyverse."

I'm sorry, but I can't make sense of this. You need to explain yourself more clearly.

Now, if you understood that, then sense can't be subjective.

On the other hand, if you didn't, and sense were subjective, there's nothing you can do to make yourself understood -- always assuming, of course, that you understood that sentence, too!

I am reasonably sure several others understand my references and can make some sense of my earlier statement, even if you cannot.

Sense is something we construct from context, actively, even if semiconsciously, depending on the communication to be translated into our personal subjective understandings, built on experience and presumptions of mutual correspondences of reference frames.

I hope that clarifies. I dont wish to hog the thread with esoterix. I think your response makes my point without labouring it further.

"I am reasonably sure several others understand my references and can make some sense of my earlier statement, even if you cannot."

That remains to be seen.

"Sense is something we construct from context, actively, even if semiconsciously, depending on the communication to be translated into our personal subjective understandings, built on experience and presumptions of mutual correspondences of reference frames."

Even though I disagree with what you say here, this merely tells us how we 'construct' sense. But, it no more means sense is subjective than it would mean a building is subjective if we constructed that too.

Because I realy think this is just academic and ultimately of little constructive use regarding what I consider relevant.

'Now, if you understood that, then sense can't be subjective.'

Your understanding of my agreement as absolute correspondence of my understanding with your intended meaning may actually be a misunderstanding that has yet to evidentially emerge. In other words, our 'sense' of understanding your statement may appear objectively solid and mutual, but unless we can actually access each others internal 'sense' of understanding they must remain as (often and indeed usually)internal and subjective working hypotheses. We probably percieve blue as the same sensory experience, but our internal colour spectra also probably diverge to at least some extent.

Time and space appear to make 'sense' because we have evolved sense organs that translate environmental stimuli into sense...but as several creative conjurors have better demonstrated than I can, we might just be plugged in to virtual circuits that convince us we are in possesion of external sense organs. Our objective reality is ultimately a neural map developed since we first emerged, our current medium being ocular symbols in a mutually acquired sociolinguistic code.

Meantime, i do work off the presumption that there is an external objective reality, but i also observe regularly the divergent understandings of how the external universe(multiverse?)moves and works.

It took Einstein twenty years to convince the smartest scientists of his time that he had a better approximation of the sense to be made of the observable than they presumed with their Newtonian certainties.

To ground it back in context...take the example of our revolutionary cadres who coalesce for their political enterprises in undying comradeship only to find post revolution their aims never actually corresponded in the first place. Defenestrations anyone?

"Your understanding of my agreement as absolute correspondence of my understanding with your intended meaning may actually be a misunderstanding that has yet to evidentially emerge. In other words, our 'sense' of understanding your statement may appear objectively solid and mutual, but unless we can actually access each others internal 'sense' of understanding they must remain as (often and indeed usually)internal and subjective working hypotheses. We probably percieve blue as the same sensory experience, but our internal colour spectra also probably diverge to at least some extent."

I think you are confusing my use of "sense" with (maybe) "meaning". If you have read the post I linked to, you will see that I define "sense" in more technical direction.

But I can't agree with this:

"but unless we can actually access each others internal 'sense' of understanding they must remain as (often and indeed usually)internal and subjective working hypotheses. We probably percieve blue as the same sensory experience, but our internal colour spectra also probably diverge to at least some extent,"

I'm not too sure it helps to introduce our perception of colour terms, here. Anyway, the meaning of "blue" is in no way affected by what any of us idiosyncratically perceive/internalise. Indeed, I can understand what you have to say here even if I have no idea what you 'internally' perceive blue to be. [But, I deny we 'internally process' these notions, anyway.]

"Time and space appear to make 'sense' because we have evolved sense organs that translate environmental stimuli into sense...but as several creative conjurors have better demonstrated than I can, we might just be plugged in to virtual circuits that convince us we are in possesion of external sense organs. Our objective reality is ultimately a neural map developed since we first emerged, our current medium being ocular symbols in a mutually acquired sociolinguistic code."

You must be using 'code' in a new and as-yet-unexplained way, since codes are parasitic on language (they depend on a domain language, a translation manual, and a target language), and so can't explain language -- so, unless you think we are both spies, neither of us has acquired a 'code' of any sort.

The same could be said of these 'maps' to which you refer.

"Meantime, i do work off the presumption that there is an external objective reality, but i also observe regularly the divergent understandings of how the external universe(multiverse?)moves and works."

It can't be a presumption, since you were operating in this way before you could presume anything at all.

"It took Einstein twenty years to convince the smartest scientists of his time that he had a better approximation of the sense to be made of the observable than they presumed with their Newtonian certainties."

I'm not too sure what this has got to do with anything I have argued in this thread.

"To ground it back in context...take the example of our revolutionary cadres who coalesce for their political enterprises in undying comradeship only to find post revolution their aims never actually corresponded in the first place. Defenestrations anyone?"

You're code is 'technical language'..aka jargon. That was apparent from checking your post reference. Precisely why I lobbed in Monthy Python and Lewis Carroll. Words mean precisely what YOU decide they mean. YOUR version of 'sense' must prevail? Communication, I hate to break it to you, is not synonymous with dictation in 'technical' language. Ideological shorthand may have its place, but this, as far as I know is not your personal seminar. As i said earlier, academic, my dear Rosa.

Spies???We are both using computers, built on technical codes. It seems you wish to colonise language to suit your 'technical' frame, ever the mark of priestcraft.

I'll leave you and 'boring' to amuse yourselves in your technical bubble. Your ignorant ad hominem presumptions seem symbiotic and mutually reinforcing. That you even think such a troll worth anything other than flagging says more about you than your post or commentary. Nor are you even in the region of my reading predilections.

If you scan the top of the thread you might notice the topic is the group psychology of the SWP. I don't think your technical claims to infallibility get validisation over the normal dictionary use of language. But I'll leave that to the relevant division.

I'll simply leave you by referring you to my comments on jargon on 14/11. This is both tiresome and sterile. There are better things to do than learn your plasticine techniquery.

I hope you and the other borehole will be very happy together. Ideal couple seems the appropriate technical term. Apologies if I disturbed your complacency, but it does remind me of seventies leftist 'technical' exclusivity. Wasn't that part of the critique of SWP?
Ciao.

"You're code is 'technical language'..aka jargon. That was apparent from checking your post reference. Precisely why I lobbed in Monthy Python and Lewis Carroll. Words mean precisely what YOU decide they mean. YOUR version of 'sense' must prevail? Communication, I hate to break it to you, is not synonymous with dictation in 'technical' language. Ideological shorthand may have its place, but this, as far as I know is not your personal seminar. As i said earlier, academic, my dear Rosa."

But that isn't so; I offered a definition of "sense" in terms we both understand. [Perhaps plain English is beyond you?]

"Communication, I hate to break it to you, is not synonymous with dictation in 'technical' language."

Who said it was? Not me.

"Ideological shorthand may have its place, but this, as far as I know is not your personal seminar."

Again, who said it was? I put my arguments forward (like anyone else here) and it's up to others to accept or reject them -- or, indeed, ignore them.

"Spies???"

I made that reference since I could not follow your use of 'code'. If it's a technical use of that word, then you will need to spell it out. If it's an ordinary use of that word, then my previous comments apply.

"We are both using computers, built on technical codes."

Again, how does this use of 'code' help us understand whether sense/language is subjective or not?

Where have I even so much as attempted to "colonise language"? And what "technical frame" is this that I am supposed to have or to be promoting? Apart from a non-standard use of "sense", which I defined clearly in ordinary terms, I have no "technical" agenda at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

If anything, *you* are the one who keeps introducing technical issues (over 'codes', relativity theory and the like)

"I'll leave you and 'boring' to amuse yourselves in your technical bubble. Your ignorant ad hominem presumptions seem symbiotic and mutually reinforcing. That you even think such a troll worth anything other than flagging says more about you than your post or commentary. Nor are you even in the region of my reading predilections."

I think I can take lessons from you over 'ad hominem' issues.

"Nor are you even in the region of my reading predilections."

Who asked you to butt in anyway?

[And it's all the same to me if you prefer your present state of ignorance.]

"If you scan the top of the thread you might notice the topic is the group psychology of the SWP.."

I intervened in this discussion since my ideas were being discussed and criticised.

"I don't think your technical claims to infallibility get validisation over the normal dictionary use of language. But I'll leave that to the relevant division."

Where precisely have I claimed 'infallibility'?

You seem to be long on assertion, short on proof.

"I'll simply leave you by referring you to my comments on jargon on 14/11. This is both tiresome and sterile. There are better things to do than learn your plasticine techniquery."

You won't be missed.

"I hope you and the other borehole will be very happy together. Ideal couple seems the appropriate technical term. Apologies if I disturbed your complacency, but it does remind me of seventies leftist 'technical' exclusivity."

We approach the nub. Who defines the terms?
I'm sticking with Oxford for the moment. Bad as Oxford may be, they are the generally accepted measure of definition on the terminology of the English language.

And the issue remains ....group psychology and the SWP...so I hope I am on topic.

In other words, if I'm not 'in the region of [your] reading preferences', why butt in? Unless asked to, of course.

Hence, my reply above.

And, I suppose we can take this with a bucket of salt, too:

"I'll simply leave you by referring you to my comments on jargon on 14/11. This is both tiresome and sterile. There are better things to do...."

Apparently, in your world there aren't 'better things to do'.

"Is this a public forum or Rosa's dictatorial pulpit?

Is Rosa the arbiter of objectivity/subjectivity?"

No more, nor no less than you are an 'arbiter' of 'better things to do', it seems.

"We approach the nub. Who defines the terms?
I'm sticking with Oxford for the moment. Bad as Oxford may be, they are the generally accepted measure of definition on the terminology of the English language."

What 'terms' and what 'definition' are these?

Or do you prefer a subjective definition of 'objectivity' (which, given your threadbare 'theory', is the best you can hope for, anyway)

"And the issue remains ....group psychology and the SWP...so I hope I am on topic.

No problem Rosa. We welcome a serious scholar like yourself to the site. Its a pity that troll came along and stirred it as some of the conversation was quite interesting. Thanks for your contributions. We do get a lot of trolling here unfortunately and they love nothing more than to get people's backs up and get them fighting among themselves thus derailing the topic at hand. We do our best to steer the topic back and prune these but are not always successful. Its often a no win situation. Such is the nature of open publishing. By all means do continue discussing SWP / DM etc. I for one am interested in learning something. I'm currently having a look at your site :-)

It makes for bad science, false argument, and a cascade of error.
Though it can delude the non scholarly..well some of them some of the time...it wont get past the most illiterate observer of human behaviour who sticks to ye ol caveat emptor code.
Thats why I opened with a question to seek clarification, not as you falsly claimed, a theory.

Initiating trite puerile personal attempts at sidetracking indicates a lack of confidence in your own argument.

As I stated; narcissism is not confined to groups, it is as the Greeks, who gave us the term, knew, a constant ambusher of the psyche.

My experiences with personnel associated with the SWP in Waterford, Dublin and elsewhere over some 25 years on different shared issues, is that they are no more prone to the condition than many of their critics. In fact I have found it to be a common failing and driver of the ego-trips forever schismatically erupting across the Left.

[moderator]
Rosa you're a bad girl, but those links were so funny I am forced to leave them up so others can enjoy them! (Sorry Opus!)
Actually a number of the articles on the plover site are rather amusing! http://plover.net/~bonds/opinions.html

perhaps on a couple of other things too, but it's hard for anyone to keep up with the Machievellian nature of the chimera of Imperialism, (which is most deft at the art of issue co-option through use of a wall of misinformation from it's hydra of media outlets). not least for part time activists holding down a job.
They sometimes are too full on in their involvement with fledgling movements and this can cause problems, but overall, I am glad they are there to help in the fight against our class enemies etc. Listening to Richard Boyd Barrett today, I've much more in common with what he had to say than the sneering evasive people not answering his questions.
Constructive criticism of allies is ok and healthy but the line between this and deliberate underhand divide and conquer attacks on the left is frequently breached here on indy by anonymous posters.[/personal capacity]

If I was to be offended or annoyed by anything so trivial I'd be somewhere in rosa's intellectual echelon, taking MYSELF too seriously when there are actually serious issues needing coverage. I could join the bunfight, but there are bigger contenders than such children needing adressing. Having raised my kids to be cheeky, I am unlikely to get sensitive when they slag me off. Rosa wouldn't stay in the same room more than the 3 minutes it would take them to get her pretentious measure.

If there is an apology due it might be for the responses you have deleted, but the evidence remains as to your partiality to your infallible friend, and besides, I dont(as the archive testifies)tend to challenge editorial priorities.

It probably took rosa more than two lines to realise the text she posted was a spoof(at first I suspected it was her own handiwork, but then realised she hasn't even that slight wit).

But I do feel its only fair you allow me state that i do know the meaning of the ad hominem term. That was my earlier reference to Lewis Carrol and 'words mean what I want them to mean', but poor rosa found that too enigmatic too. Too much Blyton perhaps. Unlike rosa, I would rather learn than bluff a learning I don't possess. I stand by my use of it. And the fact that the text preens itself on being intellectually superior because the target cannot take 'sarcasm' merely indicates rosa has never come across the caveat that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. There is a fine line; rosa shows, overtly, that she cannot discriminate where it lies. I would refer her to Ambrose Bierce for a tutorial that might strop her rusty old razor.

I hope ye both have a shred of a trace of appreciation for irony and have not been dumbed down by too much television so you cannot appreciate the very illustration ye provide of the mutual narcissism that seems to bedevil the left every time they assemble a project, which then degenerates into the holy sacrament of acrimony. Was it not Behan who said the first thing on every Irish political agenda was the split?

If ye wish to sharpen up a little more useful and constructive wit I suggest ye revisit Swift, Shaw, Behan and Beckett before your next feeble attempt to lay a mitten.

I do hope this will not be subtracted as speedily as my other, non ad hominem, attempts to keep the thread on topic. An atom of balance, please moderator. If YOU are entitled to 'give up', I trust you will be indulgent enough to allow this reply stand.
As I said, none taken.

Opus
for the record, I don't know Rosa at all. I just had a look at some of her writing. In the course of moderation I hid some of her postings too but not those two with links because they were quite witty and it seemed a shame to. You both broke our rules, partly as a result of a troll. However IMHO Rosa did attempt to engage in a serious discussion before being derailed. Also she has worked on and published serious essays related to this topic over time, not just read a link somewhere on the internet once. That deserves at least a little respect in my book. We wish to encourage people who can write and present original and interesting material of substance that readers might appreciate. We already have plenty of opinionated hecklers with a few minutes to spare. This is actually not a bulletin board. it is first and foremost a news site which also happens to allow comments.

Candidly, she and others do have a point about your behaviour on the site. Perhaps you could consider letting other voices speak a bit more instead of persistently hogging the conversation. Have you ever considered that your behaviour might actually be putting other commenters off from interacting with or coming to the site?. Essentially having the same effect as the trolls. Is this what you wish to do?

As a moderator, I have probably read more of your posts than anyone and while I would tend to agree with you on some issues and some of your wordplay can be clever/funny at times, it can also become somewhat tiresome and distracting if people are trying to discuss something serious. Also, you have a tendency to draw and respond to known trolls thus making extra work for us around here.

Question: When was the last time you wrote an actual full news article of substance here?. For what it's worth, I'd certainly have much more respect for you if you tried doing that occasionally, instead of merely using the website as your own personal creative writing practice ground.

In a nutshell, please try to be a little more considerate of others and the readers in your use of the site. Let others speak. Stop engaging in derailing bunfights with trolls. Use language more clearly to communicate with others properly rather than just playing with it all the time perhaps. Ideally maybe channel all that literary energy into researching and writing a proper news article (or a humourous book?). I know you mean well, but you may sometimes unwittingly be doing more harm than good to the site by your behaviour.

I am saying this to be constructive. I hope you can take it as I intended. I will be hiding this comment shortly as it is well off topic

I can take measured and rational criticism, and am aware I loose the run by times.

Couple of points, briefly.

We will agree to differ as regards the quality of rosa's wit and seriousness. I am not unacquainted with academic posturing and indeed subtle bullying(psychology is a priesthood unto itself). But that, again, is a subjective call, which is where I came in with my original question to rosa which raised her reactive personal response, thinking she could intimidate and dismiss my attempt to penetrate her dogmatic promulgation.
My own field is psychology, so I take this thread and the issues seriously. As I was taking rosa, until she let her objective mask slip.

I can assure you my intent is not humour, though I believe it is an asset in deconstructing false argument, and I do try not to respond, even when abused with personal and distracting vitriol, for my own gratification. I recognise it may seem so at times, and that i am as capable as the next of not being aware of the side effects of these efforts. That said, I find many of the 'serious' comments more hilarious than anything I could come up with to satirise them(I refer you to Ambrose Bierce again).

No, I do not wish to feed the trolls. The reason i often engage is because the facility to report them is not functioning and I prefer to puncture their sabotage rather than leave it unaddressed with the possibility others might conclude they have successfully intimidated. I also suspect I draw a little attention because my arguments are considered and generally informed(I do have a little time and experience sitting in silence while the more doctrinaire left ate itself waiting for capitalism to do just that). I admit my patience has never been inclined to win prizes, particularly with those who deliberately obfuscate and bluff rather than admit our common ignorance and learn from each other. I have a few years in the sales and marketing department behind me so my bullshit detector works, I have practised it commercially in an earlier stage. Not doubt rosa would have a comment for that also. But I was taking 'left wing' abuse forty years ago so it hardly registers other than as wasteful.

Language more clearly is also a subjective call, and part of my intent is to penetrate the presumptions inherent in our partial and 'technical'(jargonic?)uses of words to polish our own narcissistic tendencies(again, we are ALL prone to project our common failings onto external targets; SWP, SP.....etc)

As you engage me personally, I may as well take the opportunity to repeat that I try not to comment on editorial matters, but we will all have our own subjective gripes there too. Ta for your patience, and I will try harder. But I also hope you will not underestimate my seriousness. I take these issues seriously. I have experience on the ground. And if an intellectual flea wishes to bite, believe me, I may not track it to source and crush it, but I will certainly go ahunting.

And do please, pull me up short when I transgress. I seek no favour, and appreciate your patience and the space you supply to facilitate topics that other media suppress.

Full news article?Throw me a subject and I'll give it a shot. Meantime I'm trying to connect the dots and see is there any prospect of getting those who are seriously concerned about the descent into neo-fascistic mindlessness to see their collective interests and bury their internecine inclinations before things get any sourer. I hope that makes some sense. You have my details if I get out of line; no need to bore the readership further. Did I omit anything?

Allowing for your knowledge of psychology, I'd love to see you (or some other psychologist) do a serious article on the "Psychology of Political, Legal and Corporate Corruption": which, as I see things -- and allowing for all the warmongering connected with the Middle East at the present time, and the very large thermonuclear stockpiles some of the warmongering participants now have in their arsenals -- is taking civilisation, perhaps the whole of humanity, and maybe even the whole of "Life on Earth", to the brink of extinction?

Why is it that the summation of such political, legal, and corporate corruption appears to have already crossed some invisible line, and taken on a "life of its own": so that it now looks to many (including myself) as though the worsening situation may in fact be impossible to ever reverse?

Where did humanity go wrong?

Is there anything humanity can now do -- at this late stage -- which might at least stall this threatening trend significantly, or, much better still, reverse it?